The Latest on My Health Care

Well, I blogged recently on my Emergency room visit. I thought I had appendicitis, the day after my husband had been turned down for knee surgery. I had said that I guess God knew what he was doing, in refusing my husband's knee surgery, because that way he got to transport me, instead of us having to call an ambulance. Well, I got the bill today.

You are not going to believe this one. In an effort to be transparent, and prove that the government is out to screw the medical profession, I'm going to post this "government insurance plan" in this blog. I can't imagine what would have happened had I had to use an ambulance and it turned out to be just kidney stones.

Emergency room 594.84
Chemistry 144.02
Hematology 78.30
Urinalysis/Serology 61.94
CT Scans 4,019.24
Total billed 4,898.34

Champus ADJ -3,647.24



What that means, is the hospital has to write off $3647.24. That's the part they don't get paid. That's the part the hospital has to cost shift to someone else. Now, my question is this: If I had walked in with cash, would I have been charged $4,019.34 for a CT? If that's not the case, then that's different. But even then, I don't like the GOVERNMENT telling a hospital, a private industry, how much they can charge for a service. That's communist, not American. That's a government take-over of a private industry, and price-fixing. What isn't everyone up-in-arms about that?

And in case you can't do the math, the GOVERNMENT is reimbursing Baylor Garland at a rate of 19.4%....that's way below the stated rate of 80% that they claim Medicare/Medicaid is reimbursed at. If the hospital has to jack up the price for the government to pay any amount close to what they need, that's wrong. I've heard people in the health care profession say that even if they charged half that amount, the government would reimburse at 19.4%. Let's see, if they decided to charge $2,000 for a CT, would the government allow $388? I had told everyone in a previous blog that my statements averaged 28%...this is gonna drag down my averages.

Do you think if I need more care like that they'll deem me too high risk to keep insurance on me? Maybe they'll start saying they can't do CT's anymore. Maybe the next time they'll say, well, last time it was kidney stones. It must be a kidney stone this time, too. What if it's not? What if next time it actually is an appendix attack? What if they don't look further and jump to conclusions because the test is too expensive and they don't want to get reimbursed at 19.4%? My family will have to sue on my behalf because I'll be dead. Of course that's what they want, it's all population control, and one less voter and blogger against them.

Lori Ann Smith